Search

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a frequently seen burdensome adverse event of cancer therapy. The 5-HT3 receptor antagonist ondansetron has improved the rates of CINV but, unfortunately, up to 30% of patients do not obtain satisfactory control. This study examined whether genetic variations in a relevant drug-metabolizing enzyme (CYP2D6), transporter (ABCB1), or receptor (5-HT3) were associated with ondansetron failure., Methods: DNA was extracted from blood and used to genotype: ABCB1 (3435C > T (rs1045642) and G2677A/T (rs2032582)), 5-HT3RB (rs3758987 T > C and rs45460698 (delAAG/dupAAG)), and CYP2D6 variants. Ondansetron failure was determined by review of the medical records and by patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Results: One hundred twenty-nine patients were approached; 103 consented. Participants were less than 1 to 33 years (mean 6.85). A total of 39.8% was female, 58.3% was White (22.3% Black, 19.4% other), and 24.3% was Hispanic. A majority had leukemia or lymphoma, and 41 (39.8%) met the definition of ondansetron failure. Of variants tested, rs45460698 independently showed a significant difference in risk of ondansetron failure between a mutant (any deletion) and normal allele (p = 0.0281, OR 2.67). Age and BMI were both predictive of ondansetron failure (age > 12 (OR 1.12, p = 0.0012) and higher BMI (OR 1.13, p = 0.0119)). In multivariate analysis, age > 12 was highly predictive of ondansetron failure (OR 7.108, p = 0.0008). rs45460698 was predictive when combined with an increased nausea phenotype variant of rs1045642 (OR 3.45, p = 0.0426)., Conclusion: Select phenotypes of 5-HT3RB and ABCB1, age, and potentially BMI can help predict increased risk for CINV in a diverse pediatric oncology population., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)., Methods: Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life., Results: Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups., Conclusions: Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.

Background: Aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, in combination with 5 HT-3 antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in adults receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy to reduce chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV). Data for use of aprepitant in children is limited and hence aprepitant is not recommended by Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario guidelines for prevention of CIV in children <12 years., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at a single center in chemotherapy naïve children (5-18 years) receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received intravenous ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) and dexamethasone (0.15 mg/kg) prior to chemotherapy followed by oral ondansetron and dexamethasone. Patients randomly assigned to aprepitant arm received oral aprepitant (15-40 kg = days 1-3, 80 mg; 41-65 kg = day 1, 125 mg and days 2-3, 80 mg) 1 h before chemotherapy. Control group received placebo as add-on therapy. Primary outcome measure was the incidence of acute moderate to severe vomiting, which was defined as more than two vomiting episodes within 24 h after the administration of the first chemotherapy dose until 24 h after the last chemotherapy dose in the block. Complete response (CR) was defined as absence of vomiting and retching during the specified phase., Results: Of the 96 randomized patients, three were excluded from analysis; 93 patients were analyzed (50 in aprepitant arm and 43 in placebo arm). Acute moderate and severe vomiting was reported in 72 % patients receiving placebo and 38 % patients receiving aprepitant (p = 0.001). Complete response rates during acute phase were significantly higher in aprepitant arm (48 vs. 12 %, p < 0.001). No major adverse effects were reported by patients/guardians., Conclusions: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial shows that aprepitant significantly decreases the incidence of CIV during acute phase when used as an add-on drug with ondansetron and dexamethasone in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Purpose: Nausea and vomiting are among the most feared complications of chemotherapy reported by patients. The objective of this study was to establish the overall complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue medication 0-120 h after chemotherapy) with either ondansetron- or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)., Methods: This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, single-center, pilot study that enrolled patients receiving their first cycle of HEC. Patients were randomized to receive either palonosetron 0.25 mg IV (PAD) or ondansetron 24 mg orally (OAD) on day 1 prior to HEC. All patients received oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1, then 80 mg on days 2 and 3, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on day 1, then 8 mg on days 2, 3, and 4. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data., Results: A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 20 in each arm. All patients were female, and 39 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer. For the primary endpoint, 65 % (95 % CI, 40.8-84.6 %) of patients in the PAD arm and 40 % (95 % CI, 19.1-63.9 %) of patients in the OAD arm achieved an overall CR., Conclusions: While CR rates for aprepitant and dexamethasone plus palonosetron or ondansetron-containing regimens have been published previously, this is the first documentation of CR rates with these regimens in the same patient population. These results may be used to design a larger, adequately powered, prospective study comparing these regimens.

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of implementation of institutional guidelines for low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel and estimate the cost saving for all low emetic risk chemotherapies., Methods: We examined the clinical effect of preparing and implementing institutional antiemetic guidelines for the breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel therapy. Although the antiemetic medication for such patients used to be ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (OND + DEX), it was changed to dexamethasone (DEX) 12 mg alone after implementation of the institutional guidelines. The effectiveness and adverse effects of DEX alone (56 patients, 205 courses) were compared with those of OND + DEX (41 patients, 151 courses). The cost saving was calculated from the antiemetic costs in both groups. The annual cost saving was estimated from the number of all low emetic risk chemotherapies in a year., Results: The incidences of nausea (19.5% versus 16.1%), vomiting (2.4% versus 0%), constipation (34.1% versus 30.4%), and insomnia (17.1% versus 17.9%) were not significantly different between the OND + DEX group and DEX alone group. In all low emetic risk chemotherapies, US $78,883 of potential cost saving was estimated in the first year after changing the antiemetic treatment., Conclusion: The present results suggest that DEX alone is equally effective for preventing nausea and vomiting and less expensive compared with a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist plus DEX in low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel.

Purposes: Ondansetron plus dexamethasone are standard antiemetic agents for highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Metoclopramide is a dopamine antagonist, which may enhance efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of metoclopramide added to standard antiemetic regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis., Methods: Patients who received ≥50 mg/m(2) of cisplatin for the first time were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1 and were randomized to receive either standard antiemetics (ondansetron 8 mg orally bid on days 2-5 and dexamethasone 8 mg orally bid on days 2-4) plus metoclopramide 20 mg orally qid on days 2-5 or a placebo. The primary endpoint was a complete response (CR) rate defined as no emesis and no rescue treatment over a 120-h period. Secondary endpoints included severity of nausea and vomiting, time to first emesis, quality of life, and adverse effects., Results: Among 162 patients, 50 patients (60%) in the metoclopramide group and 42 patients (53%) in the control group achieved CR (p = 0.36). The mean times to first emesis in the metoclopramide and control groups were 88 and 75 h, respectively (p = 0.18). The degrees of nausea and vomiting in both groups were similar. Eleven patients (13%) in the metoclopramide group and 20 (25%) in the control group required rescue treatment (p = 0.05). Quality of life and adverse effects were not different between the two groups., Conclusion: The addition of metoclopramide to ondansetron plus dexamethasone reduced the use of rescue medication, but did not affect complete response rate, quality of life or adverse effects.

Purpose: The main aim of the present study was to assess antiemetic prescriptions used during chemotherapy and identify if these are in agreement with internationally agreed consensus guidelines (MASCC/ASCO)., Methods: A web-based survey in the UK was carried out collecting data through a 32-item questionnaire using a snowball sampling technique and the email lists of two large oncology societies in the country., Results: The participants were 154 oncologists and oncology nurse prescribers. Data showed a great variability in antiemetic prescriptions used, most not been in accordance with MASCC/ASCO consensus guidelines. The variability was also reflected in the doses of antiemetics used. Overall, clinicians undertreated patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and overtreated patients receiving low and minimally emetogenic chemotherapy. Eight of ten clinicians, however, prescribed antiemetics in accordance with consensus guidelines in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. There was more agreement between clinicians and guidelines for acute nausea/vomiting and less for delayed symptoms. The uptake of MASCC/ASCO guidelines was minimal., Conclusions: The low level of agreement between actual clinical practice and evidence-based consensus guidelines may be one of the reasons for the considerable incidence of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. There is a need to utilise consensus guidelines more widely and educate clinicians on this aspect of supportive care.

Purpose: Aprepitant was shown previously to be effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in breast cancer patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimen. This study assessed aprepitant in patients receiving a broad range of MEC regimens with a variety of tumor types., Methods: This phase III, randomized, gender-stratified, double-blind trial enrolled patients with confirmed malignancies, naïve to MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, who were scheduled to receive a single dose of at least one MEC agent. Patients received an aprepitant triple-therapy regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone) or a control regimen (ondansetron and dexamethasone) administered orally. Primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients with no vomiting and complete response (no vomiting and no rescue medication), respectively, during the 120 h post-chemotherapy., Results: Of 848 randomized patients, 77% were female, and 52% received non-AC-based antineoplastic regimens. Significantly, more patients in the aprepitant group achieved no vomiting and complete response, regardless of whether they received AC or non-AC regimens, in the 120 h after chemotherapy. Overall, the incidences of adverse events were generally similar in the aprepitant (62.8%) and control groups (67.2%)., Conclusions: The aprepitant regimen provided superior efficacy in the treatment of CINV in a broad range of patients receiving MEC (non-AC or AC) in both no vomiting and complete response endpoints. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. These results show the benefit of including aprepitant as part of the standard antiemetic regimen for cancer patients receiving MEC.

Introduction: In highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the recommended dose of the serotonin-receptor antagonist ondansetron (5 mg/m(2) q8h) may be insufficient to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In adults, ondansetron-loading doses (OLD) of 32 mg are safe. We aimed to evaluate in children the safety of an OLD of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v., followed by two doses of 5 mg/m(2) q8h., Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study included all pediatric oncology patients having received > or =1 OLD between 2002 and 2005. Adverse events (AE) definitely, probably, or possibly related to OLD were studied, excluding AE not or unlikely related to the OLD. Associations between potential predictors and at least moderate AE were analyzed by mixed logistic regression., Results: Of 167 patients treated with chemotherapy, 37 (22%) received 543 OLD. The most common AE were hypotension, fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, hot flashes/flushes, and dizziness. At least mild AE were described in 139 OLD (26%), at least moderate AE in 23 (4.2%), and severe AE in 5 (0.9%; exact 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-2.1). Life-threatening or lethal AE were not observed (0.0%; 0.0-0.6). At least moderate AE were significantly more frequent in female patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% CI 1.4-8.8; p = 0.010), after erroneously given second OLD (17.0; 1.9-154; p = 0.012) and higher 24 h cumulative surface corrected dose (1.26 per mg/m(2); 1.06-1.51; p = 0.009). OLD given to infants below 2 years were not associated with more frequent AE., Conclusions: Ondansetron-loading doses of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v. seem to be safe in infants, children, and adolescents.

The field of high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation has been expanded recently as a treatment for solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Severe emesis remains one of the main extramedullary side-effects of high-dose regimens during the first week of treatment. Traditional antiemetics such as chlorpromazine, diazepam, and phenothiazines are extensively used but are unable to control emesis. The new antiemetic ondansetron, a serotonin receptor (5HT3) antagonist appears to be superior to these drugs for cisplatin-induced emesis. The study we present here is an attempt to control emesis following high-dose regimens, during bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplantation, with ondansetron. To our knowledge no other paper has reported the efficacy of this antiemetic in such group of patients. A total of 29 patients who received highly emetogenic polychemotherapy as conditioning regimens for bone marrow transplantation were treated with ondansetron, which was given as an 8-mg i.v. short infusion prior the initiation of treatment and every 6 h thereafter for 3 days, and an 8-mg dose every 8 h for 5 additional days. All the patients had previously been treated with chemotherapy and were evaluable for response and toxicity. Complete and major protection of vomiting on day 1 was achieved by 76% of the patients, 58% on day 2 and 52% on day 3. Nausea was absent or mild in 79% of patients on day 1, 45% on day 2 and 41% on day 3.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

To address the economic issues posed by the introduction of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis based on clinical trial data published in the recent literature. Cost calculations include initial treatment and a second-line salvage treatment. The average cost and incremental cost were established. Incremental cost corresponds to the extra cost involved in achieving total control of emesis in 1% extra patients. If 5-HT3 RA is not part of the initial treatment, salvage treatment with ondansetron is not cost-effective. Moreover, starting with the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone saves more money than starting with ondansetron alone. However, if the difference in emesis control is only minimal, treatment with the 5-HT3 RA remains more expensive.

Female patients with ovarian cancer are at high risk for emesis. A study evaluating the antiemetic activity and tolerability of ondansetron plus dexamethasone compared to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine in this group of patients has been performed. A group of 63 patients with ovarian cancer undergoing cisplatin treatment were enrolled in the study. Vomiting, nausea and other side-effects were evaluated by the investigators during the first 24 h and recorded by the patients on a diary card on days 2-4. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone showed a higher antiemetic activity during the first 24 h after cisplatin administration in all three cycles of cisplatin treatment, giving over 90% complete protection from vomiting at the first cycle. The efficacy of ondansetron plus dexamethasone decreased at the second cycle, but the percentage of complete protection from vomiting always remained better than 70%; there was poorer protection in the metoclopramide group, and its effect was similar during all three cycles. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone was also found to be more efficacious than the metoclopramide regimen on the second day after cisplatin administration, while on days 3-4 a high rate of complete protection from emesis was achieved by both antiemetic therapies (> 80%). About 40%-55% of patients receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone and about 65%-85% of patients treated with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine reported nausea or vomiting during days 1-4. Ondansetron plus dexamethasone is more efficacious than metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine but new strategies to improve antiemetic efficacy in ovarian cancer patients must be outlined.